On Thu, 29 May 2008 22:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > + start++; > > > + first = 0; > > > + } > > > > This is kinda bitmap_find_free_region(), only bitmap_find_free_region() > > isn't quite strong enough. > > > > Generally I think it would have been better if you had added new > > primitives to the bitmap library (or enhanced existing ones) and used > > them here, rather than implementing private functionality. > > The scope of the patchset is already fairly large. It would be a relatively small incremental effort ;) > The search here is > different and not performance critical. Not sure if this is useful for > other purposes. I think that strengthening bitmap_find_free_region() would end up giving us a better kernel than open-coding something similar here. > > > + */ > > > + > > > +/* Return a pointer to the instance of a object for a particular processor */ > > > +#define CPU_PTR(__p, __cpu) SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR((__p), per_cpu_offset(__cpu)) > > > > eek, a major interface function which is ALL IN CAPS! > > > > can we do this in lower-case? In a C function? > > No. This is a macro and therefore uppercase (there is macro magic going on > that ppl need to be aware of). AFAICR you wanted it this way last year. C > function not possible because of the type checking. urgh. This is a C-convention versus kernel-convention thing. The C convention exists for very good reasons. But it sure does suck. What do others think? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
